Player Stats

Michael Heldman College Stats

Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.

Stat Footprint

Career production snapshot

Tackles
119
TFL
34.5
Sacks
18.5
QB hurries
27
Passes defended
5

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2021 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan33-0--037
2022 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan11207.521-034.1
2023 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan10194.51101044.9
2024 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan1229648-043
2025 PostseasonCentral Michigan1310.50--075.2
2025 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan13471611.584075.2

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason

Central Michigan paired 40 primary output with 42.7 efficiency.

Supporting note

2025 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 42.7 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2025 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Buffalo

Win with backfield disruption leading the way. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.

Analysis workspace

Season Workbench

Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2025 Postseason · Central Michigan

Games

13

Havoc Plays / G

3.1

Efficiency

42.7

Usage

18.3

Consistency

58.2

Best Game by takeover score

Buffalo

Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.

Active game

Hover over a point

Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.

Game-by-Game Trend

Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.

12345678910111213

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Northwestern: 0.5. San José State: 2. Pittsburgh: 0. Michigan: 1. Wagner: 4. Eastern Michigan: 4. Akron: 1. Bowling Green: 4. Massachusetts: 6. Western Michigan: 0. Buffalo: 8. Kent State: 5.5. Toledo: 4

Volume vs Efficiency

Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.

Low volumeHigh quality

High volumeHigh quality

Low volumeLower quality

High volumeLower quality

Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.

Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Northwestern: 1 by 9.2. San José State: 6 by 45. Pittsburgh: 1 by 4.2. Michigan: 1 by 14.2. Wagner: 5 by 60.8. Eastern Michigan: 5 by 60.8. Akron: 5 by 30.8. Bowling Green: 5 by 60.8. Massachusetts: 1 by 54.2. Western Michigan: 6 by 25. Buffalo: 4 by 66.7. Kent State: 5 by 70.8. Toledo: 3 by 52.5

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins4.8 · Games = 7 · +3.7 vs Losses
Losses1.1 · Games = 6 · -3.7 vs Wins